posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:45 AM
What an excellent thread!
Props indeed to semperfortis for starting this freight train!
I find it very interesting to look at the different perspectives shared here.
As a nation, it is quite obvious that we have strayed away from what our forefathers originally intended (i.e. Constitutional law, advocates of states
rights, and minimal federal intervention).
The Constitution, the foundation of this wonderful life in the United States, was to be the backbone and the basis of a (if you allow me to use the
Fox News terminology) fair and balanced land where people could live in comfort knowing that the ruling forces were (technically as well as literally)
themselves. It was a nation BY the people, FOR the people - serving as an example to the other nations that people can indeed rule themselves and get
by just fine without an 'elite' class (as most other countries were dominated by monarchies and oligarchies at the time).
Much can be argued about Ron Paul, and even more can be argued about the proper direction the United States should be headed in and what kind of
reforms should be made (as most will agree that reforms are in order). However, there are certain points which cannot be argued (at least logically,
as anything can technically be argued - it would just be irrational and insane)...
As I see it, the points of view displayed here boil down to this:
The United States best interests lie in:
A) Returning to Constitutional law
B) Creating a new foundation for our government (a brave new world, if you will...)
Ron Paul represents Viewpoint A.
Most (if not all) other candidates represent Viewpoint B.
As his example so adequately and eloquently displays, Ron Paul symbolizes a return to Constitutional law and the vision of our forefathers. He has,
through example as well as wordage, shown that he not only supports the constitution but enforces it (i.e. through his voting actions). Our nation
has, albeit slowly but surely, gone in the direction of abandoning states rights in lieu of a more federalized approach. Viewpoint A's claim is that
returning to our roots will create a more productive, wealthy, peaceful, and well-liked nation in the world.
As per the other candidates examples, they symbolize a forging ahead into a brave new world. While I have not had the opportunity to ask them
personally yet, I would wager most of them would say that our forefather's could not have expected the great advances that have been made in
technology and the world at large, and that they are only continuing on the changes our forefathers would have made if they were around today. They
would also leave the Federal Income Tax (an unapportioned tax, illegal under the Constitution) untouched. While I believe some of the candidates might
say they back the constitution, by them supporting the Federal Income Tax it is a clear example that they are just paying wordage, crossing the
dubious line of possibly being branded as liars. The smart candidates on this side would claim the constitution is an outdated piece of parchment that
has no place in our great nation, and a new one must be drafted in its place in order to allow us the freedoms and opportunities only a more
federalized nation could provide. Viewpoint B's claim is that forging forward into a brave new world is where the true wealth and prosperity of our
nation's future lies.
For me, this is a very simple and accurate way to view the arguments made here. The only real questions being posed to us as a voting community
A) Is the United States better off returning to Constitutional law?
B) Is the United States better off creating a new foundation for our government?
I am curious to hear any other posters'/peoples'/voters' views on this outlook.